Yet you would staunchly argue that Warne and Lillee are the greatest ever based primarily on peer and historical analysis even though they numbers are matched or surpassed, in the case of Warne by Murali and For Lillee quite a few from his own era, you also defend the fact that he never sucessfully played in the sub continent, the toughest test for fast bowlers. Yet now you would use statistice to tear down the only player (along with Bradman) ranked even higher than even Warne and Lillee by peers and historians alike. It was the same Keith Miller you are referencing who himself said that Sobers is no doubt the best All Rounder to have played the game.
If you are going to trust the Benuads, Bradman's ect regarding Lillee and Warne dispite the fact that they are bowlers with better statistics than them, why do you refuse to trust them regarding Sobers?

This is why it is tedious arguing this with people who clearly don't appreciate that the other person had thought about this at length.

Warne, Lillee, Murali, Marshall, etc, all have records comparable with basically any other great you wish to name in their stead as the 'greatest'.

Sobers' bowling record, on the whole, is so far away from the plaudits it has gained that the suggestion can't be entertained by someone who appreciates the statistical nuances. I'll repeat:

When it comes to statistical arguments, you can often make a case that the batsman that averages 50 is better than the one which averages 55. The bowler that strikes at 60, is better than the one that strikes at 55. There are factors such as the pitch and opponent quality that make that a reasonable claim. These are estimations within reason. For Sobers, those things just don't wash and its a mystery why a record that is so beyond the commentary it has garnered still gets lauded by fans. Even those that never witnessed him play.

So I can clearly understand nuances in statistics which can favour a player here and there based on certain contexts. But no context that actually existed for Sobers can explain a career where for the majority of it you are bumping shoulders with the worst bowlers in Test history.

Originally Posted by the big bambino

Ikki. I'm looking at Sobers' record again. This time from 69 to retirement. I've done so bcos it is part of the timeframe when you say he was ineffective with the ball. Actually his average for his 53 wkts is 30.96 and better than his overall average. His SR is a just a tad higher though. This leads me to think that he was an effective bowler from 58-74; a far greater period than the 7 yrs btwn 61-68 which were his peak years.

Neither are what you would call effective compared to the average ratios of bowlers in his era.

If 61-68 is his peak, then 54-60 and 69-74 are his non-peak. His combined non-peak record is: 110 wickets, averaging 41, striking at 110 balls per wicket. This was his record for 60/93 tests and 13/20 years of playing cricket.

I think its time to rethink his bowling.

Thankyou for the statistical comparison with Kallis. I place most importance on a bowler's ave. and think SR and ER secondary. Especially in tests. If a bowler's ave is acceptable but his SR high that infers his ER must be good. If his economy is poor, no matter, his SR is acceptable. Its a trade off and tells you what role your bowler plays.

Yes, his ER is good...but if the best you can say about his bowling is that he was economical then that is a backhanded compliment. That's the kind of praise one gives to a part-timer. Not a front-line bowler or one who is considered one of the greatest all-rounders of all-time.

If my memory's right, at the end of Botham's career, England kept dragging him in to the team to plug holes, then dropping him. Like in the 1989 Ashes, when Australia thrashed England, they pulled Botham in to the team for a couple of tests.

Nah - there was no real logic to it - cricket fans, like all sports fans, have a tendency to let their hearts rule their heads when it comes to their heroes losing their mojos- selectors are meant to be immune from sort of thing but, with Botham, even they failed to rise above the sentimental rose-tinted spectacles stuff - looking back there was no justification, form-wise, for picking ITB from '86 onwards, but I for one could never see it at the time

Nah - there was no real logic to it - cricket fans, like all sports fans, have a tendency to let their hearts rule their heads when it comes to their heroes losing their mojos- selectors are meant to be immune from sort of thing but, with Botham, even they failed to rise above the sentimental rose-tinted spectacles stuff - looking back there was no justification, form-wise, for picking ITB from '86 onwards, but I for one could never see it at the time

Ted Dexter assured Botham that if he was fit he would be in the party for the 1990 Tour to the West Indies and he got fitter than he'd been for years, and they didn't pick him.

Ted Dexter assured Botham that if he was fit he would be in the party for the 1990 Tour to the West Indies and he got fitter than he'd been for years, and they didn't pick him.

...... and even now part of me believes that if he had gone out there he'd have finally nailed that gap in his cricketing cv - in fact if I'm being totally honest it wasn't until 2005 that I finally stopped believing he wouldn't improve the England team if only the idiots would pick him

This is why it is tedious arguing this with people who clearly don't appreciate that the other person had thought about this at length.

Warne, Lillee, Murali, Marshall, etc, all have records comparable with basically any other great you wish to name in their stead as the 'greatest'.

Sobers' bowling record, on the whole, is so far away from the plaudits it has gained that the suggestion can't be entertained by someone who appreciates the statistical nuances. I'll repeat:

When it comes to statistical arguments, you can often make a case that the batsman that averages 50 is better than the one which averages 55. The bowler that strikes at 60, is better than the one that strikes at 55. There are factors such as the pitch and opponent quality that make that a reasonable claim. These are estimations within reason. For Sobers, those things just don't wash and its a mystery why a record that is so beyond the commentary it has garnered still gets lauded by fans. Even those that never witnessed him play.

So I can clearly understand nuances in statistics which can favour a player here and there based on certain contexts. But no context that actually existed for Sobers can explain a career where for the majority of it you are bumping shoulders with the worst bowlers in Test history.

Neither are what you would call effective compared to the average ratios of bowlers in his era.

If 61-68 is his peak, then 54-60 and 69-74 are his non-peak. His combined non-peak record is: 110 wickets, averaging 41, striking at 110 balls per wicket. This was his record for 60/93 tests and 13/20 years of playing cricket.

I think its time to rethink his bowling.

Yes, his ER is good...but if the best you can say about his bowling is that he was economical then that is a backhanded compliment. That's the kind of praise one gives to a part-timer. Not a front-line bowler or one who is considered one of the greatest all-rounders of all-time.

He is picked as a part timer, he is the 5th bowler who comes on as relief, your frontline bowlers are your 4 primary bowlers who are primarily picked as bowlers and whose job it is to take wickets. You will not find a All Rounder, besides Botham in his brief prime who could be seen as a front line bolwer and a legitimate top order batsman with the numbers to match. Of all players with a combined All Rounder rating and consistency with both bat and ball (As I showed a couple posts back) he is the most consistent. NO ONE is comparing him to Mcgrath and that is not his job.
Regarding Lillee and his comparable numbers, Lillee played practically all of his cricket in England and Australia, bypassing the death bed pitches of the S.C and still finished statistically behind some of his peers, so what conditions did he have to overcome and what argument can you make that would explain the difference in stats to make him the best ever?
You are just choosing to agree with the persons who share your views, and ignore them when it doesn't fit into your way of thinking. It's just a matter of what is conveniant for you.

...... and even now part of me believes that if he had gone out there he'd have finally nailed that gap in his cricketing cv - in fact if I'm being totally honest it wasn't until 2005 that I finally stopped believing he wouldn't improve the England team if only the idiots would pick him

He did sort of have the last laugh over the West Indies. In the Final Test of 1991 he came in with 4 runs needed to win and hit the winning runs. The last thing he ever did in a Test against the West Indies.

He is picked as a part timer, he is the 5th bowler who comes on as relief, your frontline bowlers are your 4 primary bowlers who are primarily picked as bowlers and whose job it is to take wickets. You will not find a All Rounder, besides Botham in his brief prime who could be seen as a front line bolwer and a legitimate top order batsman with the numbers to match. Of all players with a combined All Rounder rating and consistency with both bat and ball (As I showed a couple posts back) he is the most consistent. NO ONE is comparing him to Mcgrath and that is not his job.
Regarding Lillee and his comparable numbers, Lillee played practically all of his cricket in England and Australia, bypassing the death bed pitches of the S.C and still finished statistically behind some of his peers, so what conditions did he have to overcome and what argument can you make that would explain the difference in stats to make him the best ever?
You are just choosing to agree with the persons who share your views, and ignore them when it doesn't fit into your way of thinking. It's just a matter of what is conveniant for you.

It's far simpler than that. Sobers occasionally took the new ball, was sometimes first or second change, was sometimes first, or more usually second, spinner and he also bowled as a stock bowler tying up an end. There is no like-for-like cricketer to compare him with - hence the pointless fannying around with the statsguru which tells you nothing.

He did sort of have the last laugh over the West Indies. In the Final Test of 1991 he came in with 4 runs needed to win and hit the winning runs. The last thing he ever did in a Test against the West Indies.

He is picked as a part timer, he is the 5th bowler who comes on as relief, your frontline bowlers are your 4 primary bowlers who are primarily picked as bowlers and whose job it is to take wickets. You will not find a All Rounder, besides Botham in his brief prime who could be seen as a front line bolwer and a legitimate top order batsman with the numbers to match. Of all players with a combined All Rounder rating and consistency with both bat and ball (As I showed a couple posts back) he is the most consistent. NO ONE is comparing him to Mcgrath and that is not his job.

The point is that many experts have praised Sobers as being the best left arm seamer ever after Akram and Davidson, when he was actually quite mediocre and there have been plenty of left armers far better than him. His bowling simply gets praise that is just extremely disproportionate to how good it actually was.

Originally Posted by kyear2

Regarding Lillee and his comparable numbers, Lillee played practically all of his cricket in England and Australia, bypassing the death bed pitches of the S.C and still finished statistically behind some of his peers, so what conditions did he have to overcome and what argument can you make that would explain the difference in stats to make him the best ever?

It's quite clear his stats would equal or better those of Imran, Hadlee and co if his awesome WSC numbers were included. Same for Viv Richards as well

He is picked as a part timer, he is the 5th bowler who comes on as relief, your frontline bowlers are your 4 primary bowlers who are primarily picked as bowlers and whose job it is to take wickets. You will not find a All Rounder, besides Botham in his brief prime who could be seen as a front line bolwer and a legitimate top order batsman with the numbers to match. Of all players with a combined All Rounder rating and consistency with both bat and ball (As I showed a couple posts back) he is the most consistent. NO ONE is comparing him to Mcgrath and that is not his job.
Regarding Lillee and his comparable numbers, Lillee played practically all of his cricket in England and Australia, bypassing the death bed pitches of the S.C and still finished statistically behind some of his peers, so what conditions did he have to overcome and what argument can you make that would explain the difference in stats to make him the best ever?
You are just choosing to agree with the persons who share your views, and ignore them when it doesn't fit into your way of thinking. It's just a matter of what is conveniant for you.

He bowled 39 overs a match. He clearly wasn't considered a part-timer. He should've been though. But being a part-timer =/= being an all-rounder in the sense that we usually discuss all-rounders.

Miller, Botham and even Imran were clearly good enough to be picked as either a batsman or a bowler. This is what makes them probably better all-rounders than Sobers (and that they weren't batting all-rounders). The fielding is where Sobers gains back some.

I've already explained my views on other bowlers - Lillee several times - so I won't rehash or digress the discussion. If you care, use the search function. If you didn't get why they're different, go to my user page and I'll post specifically to you there. I am not here to pick apart your hero because I have some bone to pick with him. Its just clear to me that this is one of those instances where "the numbers don't give you the full picture" doesn't really apply because the numbers are clear enough to show that he isn't what he was touted to be.

I similarily have no problem with Lillee, just want to prove that sometimes the numbers don't show everything to how much a player meant to a team and Lillee and Sobers were indepenseable for their respective teams.

Regarding Miller and Imran, I just don't see them as better batsmen than Sobers was a bowler and just as they were at times chosen as batsmen, Sobers was also chosen as a bowler but most importantly just as Sobers isn't good enough to make an AT XI as a bowler (and he isn't) Miller nor Imran are not good enough to make one as batsmen. Thats my point, apart from Botham, there are no perfect All Rounders, thats it. You either have to sacrifice batting (Imran, Miller) or bowling (Sobers, Kallis) and I would rather have a weaker 5th bowler (whose role is limited at best as a relief bolwer in an AT XI context) than #5 or 6 batsman.

I don't get it, why is Ikki posting irrelevant and meaningless stats again and again to prove that Sobers isn't an ATG bowler? Who said he is a comparable bowler to the McGraths and the Marshalls? The point is he is an excellent fifth bowler who would be a perfect fit in an all time side for that reason because he could bowl..well...anything. That 60/93 matches is rubbish. Tendulkar has scored 50 tons hasn't he? That would have taken him 50 matches. So for 150/200 matches he would have a crap average and that makes him a crap player...right?! See how flawed the logic is.